This week’s features: Bad line-changes...Goalkeeper interference...Curfew clocks...and more.
QUESTION: With seconds left on the curfew clock, there is a breakaway. The attacking player is tripped and the infraction meets penalty shot criteria, but the curfew as expired. What actions are to follow by the referee?
ANSWER: If a penalty shot is awarded at the end of the game (game time expires), the shot should be taken before the game is considered complete. This should apply to a curfew clock, however that decision would be subject to the management of the rink.
QUESTION: Player A-1 shot the puck and there is a rebound. As a result of the shot, Player A-2 backs into and interferes with Team B’s goaltender. At the same time as the interference, Player B-1 shoots the puck into his own net. Does the goal stand? What penalties are assessed?
ANSWER: Rule 617(b)2 in the USA Hockey Playing Rules states,
“A goal shall be legally scored if:
- The puck enters the goal as a result of any action by the defending team.”
The goal shall be awarded in your situation. However, the Interference infraction must be penalized as well. Therefore, a goal shall be awarded to Team A, and play shall resume 5 vs. 4 with Team B on the power-play.
QUESTION: During flurry around goal, the play was blown dead by the referee at the blue line when puck, goalie, 2 attackers, and 3 defenders were all entirely or partially in crease (puck was in the crease and not covered). The referee on the goal line said he did not blow his whistle because puck was still loose. The referee by the blue line said he stopped play because too many players were around the goalie. Is this the right call or should play have continued?
ANSWER: There is no real way to 100% determine whether play should have been stopped in the situation you describe. However, attacking players may enter the goalkeeper's crease if the puck is located in the crease, and play should not be stopped unless the puck enters the goal, the goalkeeper covers the puck, or some type of rules infraction occurs.
QUESTION: The visiting team lines up for a face-off and only has 4 guys on the ice (they need one more player). So before the center is ejected a defenseman jumps into the center position. The defensemen gets ejected and the original center comes in. Would this be a delay-of-game, or does the center get to take the face-off because i kicked out the defenseman?
ANSWER: This situation represents a bad line-change by the Visiting Team, therefore the referee must address this directly with the team bench. Centers should not be removed from face-offs due to slow line-changes (only for face-off procedure violations).
That being said, if a team is purposely switching players in the face-off circle in anticipation of the center being removed the official may opt to not remove the player.
QUESTION: During a shoot-out, a player was taking their shot when the goalie tried to poke-check the shooter losing (or possibly throwing) their stick in the process. This happened again when another player was taking their shot. Both shooters ended up missing the net. Should this be covered under Rule 406(c) and since the goaltender cannot be penalized then a second shot awarded and the goaltender warned?
ANSWER: Situation #20 under Rule 406 in the USA Hockey Playing Rule Case Book states:
“What happens if the goalkeeper commits a minor or major penalty infraction during a penalty shot attempt?
The Referee shall allow the shot to be taken over if a goal was not scored on the original attempt, and assess the penalty to the goalkeeper. Rule References 406(d) and 409(d).
Any penalty must be assessed as if it occurred during the normal course of the game. The goalkeeper penalty must be served by a player on the ice at the time play was stopped to assess the penalty shot.”
Download the USA Hockey Mobile Rulebook App to your mobile device from your app store today!
Tag(s): Ask the Official